Our welfare system recipients.

[cb1000rider]

Sorry, Chuck, I'm not following you.. we're discussing an overall change to the welfare / disability system. I'm not making any decisions for you or anyone else. I'm not judging you or your suggestions.. I may question, but it's for the sake of discussion. No offense or moral judgment intended..

[chuck j]

I'v seen you make many good posts , My opinion you need to actually think about this one . You are my brother .

[VoiceofReason]

I put up the post that said: “Complaining is easy. Tell me what you (meaning everyone) would do with the truly disabled and unemployable”. Actually not expecting any replies. I was surprised that not only were there replies but there were a few good ones. There were a couple I disagreed with and there was one that honestly scared me.

I think it only fair that I try to offer some suggestions to answer my question.

I also find it sickening to see people living on “assistance” that just don’t want to work. I am not prepared however to see children starving in this country for any reason. As a matter of fact, in a country that put men on the moon, children shouldn’t even go hungry.

Be careful with arrogant criticism of people because it could happen to you. Denying the fact it could happen to you might make you feel a little better and more secure, but it will not change the fact you could have a stroke, auto accident or any number of other misfortunes that prevent you from working and left you paying huge medical bills out of your pocket. Even some very rich people were suddenly poor with the last depression. There is more truth in “There but for the grace of God go I” than people realize.

The one that scared me was: “In nature only the strong survive, in America the strong are forced to support the lazy.” It was a little too close to: “nor society could escape Nature's decree that the fittest alone survive” and: “the natural struggle for existence, that allows only the very strongest and healthiest to survive, is replaced by the natural urge to 'save' at any price also the weakest and even sickest”.

My opinion is that yes we need to weed out the people that don’t want to work from the assistance programs but we need to be careful not to hurt those that are not to blame and must depend on assistance to survive.

It’s interesting that this whole discussion was about those on welfare etc. and nothing at all has been said about foreign aid and our tax money that is being given to other countries.

[cb1000rider]

I'v seen you make many good posts , My opinion you need to actually think about this one . You are my brother .

I'm happy to do to that. And I apologize if any judgement was implied, that thought didn't enter my mind... Regardless of point of view, I generally read the references provided, think about what (most) people have to say, and consider alternate opinions. I'm up for reasonable and rational discussion and I do get wound up with sensationalism and half-truth.

If I believed, like I think you do, that people who are legitimately disabled could get a fair shake without any government assistance through the kindness of others, I'd stand in line beside you... I'm just not sure that's the case. Note, I don't disagree with you, I'm simply unsure. I'm probably a little less trusting of human beings than you are, unfortunately.

[cb1000rider]

Be careful with arrogant criticism of people because it could happen to you. Denying the fact it could happen to you might make you feel a little better and more secure, but it will not change the fact you could have a stroke, auto accident or any number of other misfortunes that prevent you from working and left you paying huge medical bills out of your pocket. Even some very rich people were suddenly poor with the last depression. There is more truth in “There but for the grace of God go I” than people realize.

I insure against it, but realize that it could happen to me. It might happen in a time where I'm not insured. Even insured against it, it would be a big lifestyle hit.

Someone pointed out that we all receive some form of assistance. It could be as simply as federal funds for our roads here in Texas, but we all receive something. I think many are proponents of ending all forms of Federal assistance, but the reality of that, can you imagine: How many could pay for their retirement out of pocket on savings alone? No social security. No medicaid. No medicare. How many could afford to self pay for private insurance at retirement age? I know many will blame Obama for current costs, so take the cost of healthcare under Bush and it's projected growth rate. For me, I can comfortably self-retire on something like $3M at 65. That takes care of stock market crashes, the off chance that I live until 90, and insolvent social security. That amount of money keeps me in a middle class lifestyle. I probably won't hit $3M... Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Retire on $500k without any form of assistance in our current economy and I hope you're really healthy, don't live that long, or make great investment choices... If you think you don't have to worry about it, you're not looking around.

Hate Obamacare, but without some change no one but the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare without assistance. I recognize Obamacare for what it is: Socialism. We're not a Socialist country... I should say we weren't a Socialist country.

[nightmare69]

Don't get me started on obamacare. That's to him my health insurance is going up 25% this year. I've had to drop to the lowest plan available due to the rise in cost.

[G26ster]

How many could pay for their retirement out of pocket on savings alone? No social security. No medicaid. No medicare.

We should all plan our retirement based on the income we can expect when we retire. I based my retirement on the promise of the gov't to provide SS and Medicare. If that promise did not exist, I would have planned/invested and based my retirement quite differently. As I was required to contribute, I factored in those funds promised. I do not consider SS and Medicare gov't assistance (to me) anymore than those with corporate or union retirement plans consider those corporate assistance. That said, the cost of catastrophic medical care can bankrupt most people, no matter what.

[hillfighter]

If you don't support any sort of public assistance, at least indicate how those people would be taken care of or indicate that you're willing to deal with the reality of them not being cared for... Just a little realism, no judgment..

Charity. Honest to God charity. And I mean that literally, because there's very little honesty in socialist wealth redistribution and even less God in it. Local charities know where the money is going and they also know where it comes from. Politicians and bureaucrats don't know who is getting our money 1000 miles away and, based on their policies, it's patently obvious they have forgotten (or never cared) where the money comes from. Local charity is time and again proven to better serve the people who are truly in need and do it much more efficiently than government programs.

Now I have a question of my own. Why do some people embrace socialism when it's such a failure? Just a little realism, no judgment.

[chuck j]

Thats true Hillfighter , a system would evolve . There are too many people that care for it 'not' to happen but there would need to be a transition .

[The_Busy_Mom]

Complaining is easy. Tell me what you (meaning everyone) would do with the truly disabled and unemployable.

When our society evolves to become dependent on the government, then you have to start with the fundamentals of human morality. I am not talking about morality out of religious force, but human morality. When the first immigrants came to this country, they only had each other to depend on. When we get back to understanding that we are our only source of support, we will start putting more effort into family relationships. It is putting family first that will get us back to the path of dealing with those that are truly unemployable. And when we have our family priorities straight, we have our moral priorities straight, and see the need for charitable contributions in the community (church tithe, community volunteerism, food co-op, etc.)

This is my personal experience, so I can directly answer your question with what I would do because I have done it. My grandmother had a daughter with Down Syndrome. This Downs child is the youngest of 5 daughters. When my grandmother divorced her alcoholic, abusive husband in the early '70s, she didn't collect welfare for her daughter. She got two jobs. And the next youngest daughter (already and adult) took care of the Downs sister. When my grandmother became too frail to work, she didn't collect welfare. The second-oldest daughter got two jobs (well, she was already a police officer, so she picked up all the extra work she could. It amounted to another job.) The daughter bought a trailer, put it on the property, and housed/supported my grandmother and the Downs daughter. When my grandmother passed away, the Downs child went to live with the oldest daughter. The oldest daughter was already retired, and could take care of the Downs sister. And I have made the promise, that if my Aunt with Downs outlives all my other Aunts, and my mom, I will figure out how to care for my Aunt with Downs.

You see, we were raised to only depend on ourselves, not the government. Not everyone was raised like this because public assistance, whether domestic or foreign, child or adult, is TOO EASY to get. It has taken generations for us to be brainwashed to believe this way (some are easier to brainwash than others), and it will take many generations for us to get our brains back on straight, so to speak. The perfect example is what happened to children of the Great Depression. They grew up to be very practical, financially strong, money saving adults because they did not want to ever be back in a situation where their livelihoods were not in their control.

So, for the truly unemployable, I say you should have planned better, and now you are going to rely on your family, whether by choice, or by necessity. When the burden falls back on the people, without a government 'bailout', people will begin to re-remember what true freedom is, and what is entailed in living the American dream. I don't foresee this happening in my lifetime, but my crystal ball says maybe before my children leave this world. Maybe.

TBM

ETA: On my street, there are 12 families. The average household income in this neighborhood is low 6 figures. Of the 12 families on my street, 4 are receiving public assistance in some form. That is 33% My street might be an abnormality, but is indicative in just how easy it is to get public assistance. I had been complaining about the high fees associated with some of the activities around our area, and one of my neighbors volunteered his method in gaming the system. He has a very low base income because he is paid by commission. So, his wife stays home and he hits the welfare office. He is only required to report his consistent earnings, not commission because it isn't guaranteed. So food stamps, and CHIPS for the two kids, here he comes. And he is proud of this!! Another neighbor tried to convince me I should try to have my son qualified for disability payments because he is ADHD and suffers from bi-polar disorder; that's what they do...... what the heck?!?!?!?!?!? It's too EASY, and we have evolved to be LAZY!! (This is a generalization about our society; I understand that most of us this forum don't meet this standard, but we are the true minority sheep dogs). BTW, we won't be living here much longer. Looking to escape the big city and get somewhere just a little less suburban. Good luck to me, right!!!

[chuck j]

Well written and true . The good people in this country would take care of their own , I have to believe that or as you have said we are doomed anyway . The main problem with the government deciding who gets help is a matter of filling out paperwork . If left to you it would not take long to figure out who the slackers were and left up to you would you feed them ?

My dad was born in 1901, this is a joke he told a million times to people as I grew up .

They was an old man lived down the road from us, he wouldn't even raise food to feed himself because he was too lazy .
Seeing that was was dying of starvation some of the neighbors loaded him up and were hauling him to the bone yard .
A farmer working his field by the road saw the wagon passing by and taking pity on the old man said ;
I'll give the old man 30 bushels of corn to feed himself
The old man sat straight up and looked the farmer in the eye and asked ;
Is it shucked!
The farmer said ;
No it is not .
With a wave of his hand the old man layed back down in the wagon and said ;
Drive on !

[cb1000rider]

Now I have a question of my own. Why do some people embrace socialism when it's such a failure? Just a little realism, no judgment.

I don't like (embrace) socialism (Obamacare), assuming you're talking to me.
However, we seem to be stuck between two realities right now:
1) At the current rate of cost increases, only the rich will be able to afford medical care. Going to a family practice doctor and paying cash, I'm looking at $200-$300 just walking in the door for 15 minutes of his time currently. My insurance rates, being healthy and a good 20 years out of retirement age is ridiculous.... True "average wage" homes, I'm sure it hurts.
2) We are stuck with some form of socialism (Obamacare) or having the government put caps on medical costs (another socialist concept).

If you've got a 3rd reality, I'm all ears... The only thing I can think of is to take away the liability from being a health care professional, which will help with costs.

Yes, long term Socialist medical care does reduce the overall standard of care.

[G26ster]

2) We are stuck with some form of socialism (Obamacare) or having the government put caps on medical costs (another socialist concept).

If you've got a 3rd reality, I'm all ears...

How about a free market instead of gov't controlled health care? Simply removing restrictions for insurance allowing it to be sold across state lines, and reigning in state's mandated coverages, will reduce medical insurance costs. Simple competition. You don't see the problem with vehicle insurance companies who are beating each other bloody fighting for your business in every media outlet possible. MHO

[chasfm11]

2) We are stuck with some form of socialism (Obamacare) or having the government put caps on medical costs (another socialist concept).

If you've got a 3rd reality, I'm all ears...

How about a free market instead of gov't controlled health care? Simply removing restrictions for insurance allowing it to be sold across state lines, and reigning in state's mandated coverages, will reduce medical insurance costs. Simple competition. You don't see the problem with vehicle insurance companies who are beating each other bloody fighting for your business in every media outlet possible. MHO

I'm in NO WAY in favor of the government being involved in heath care. The sad fact is that, through Medicare and Medicaid, the Feds are in it to an extraordinary extent beyond Obamacare. Even if the ACA were cancelled tomorrow, we would still have all or most of the heathcare problems that we have.

The fact is that the heathcare is NOT a free market situation. Like the banking industry, too much of healthcare is controlled by large organizations with whom the health insurance industry is constantly doing battle. I don't see any reasonable way out of the current conundrum on healthcare costs. It is going to take the movements like the few physicians who no longer will accept any healthcare insurance growing by leaps and bounds before any real change can occur. As long as Medicare is a player, that change is going to be between difficult and impossible. The chances of changing Medicare are about is good as standing in the middle of your back yard and getting hit by 10 meteorites from 10 different directions at the same instant.

[cb1000rider]

How about a free market instead of gov't controlled health care? Simply removing restrictions for insurance allowing it to be sold across state lines, and reigning in state's mandated coverages, will reduce medical insurance costs. Simple competition. You don't see the problem with vehicle insurance companies who are beating each other bloody fighting for your business in every media outlet possible. MHO

I'd take that as a reasonable possible solution, but wasn't that what we had pre-Obama? And the track of healthcare costs was very up and to the right. Of course, we did have the state-restrictions that you mentioned, but I believe you can thank political special interests for that... I'm just not sure that free market is a solution in this case. The costs were not headed in the right direction... Correct me if I'm wrong.